« September 2006 | Main | November 2006 »
October 31, 2006
Securing media attention for medical devices
by MaryEllen O'Donohue
The billions of dollars in sales that stents have generated for device companies are driving new product development and luring more venture capitalists into the device business. These significant investments are generating increased media interest, specifically among specialty device reporters. As spending within this arena has become more vast, so has the number of reporters who have been assigned to cover this beat. Years ago, pr professionals could call upon 5 - 10 top-tier reporters dedicated to devices whereas now, we can call on 25 or so.
Device reporters must cover the scientific and business perspective of these products as well as the future of pipeline products. Like pharma/health journalists, we now see more and more device reporters attending major medical meetings such as AHA and ASCO, based on a heightened curiosity about devices and the role that they play within the pharmaceutical industry. Keep in mind that very often, a device is a collaboration between a pharmaceutical company and its own medical technology manufacturer. These partnerships are reinforced at medical meetings and via specific pr communications regarding the product. We've also recently learned that the smaller the device, such as implantables, the higher the level of interest among media due to the inherent product complexities designed to help save lives. High-science reporters help the "device story" along by taking it to a new level, wanting to explore new applications for or improvements upon existing products.
As science evolves, so does discovery. Devices represent an area of expansion worth paying attention to when it comes to diagnosis. Device reporters are all eyes and ears when it comes to new news in this arena as investors look for fertile financial opportunities and consumers look for new answers to age-old health-related concerns.
Posted by maryellen_o'donohue at 03:28 PM
Comments (0)
| TrackBack | Permalink
First World Resources for Third World Diseases
by Peter Pitts
In the November issue of Commentary I make the point that Big Pharma needs to be seen as focusing more on promoting the public health than they do on promoting products.
Pfizer has just taken a significant step in that direction.
The world's biggest pharmaceutucal company has announced a collaboration that gives access to its library of medicinal compounds – the world’s largest – and also brings scientists from developing countries into Pfizer’s laboratories for training in drug discovery techniques.
The collaboration with The Special Program for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases of the WHO (WHO/TDR) is part of a new effort to link the research resources of a major pharmaceutical company to a global network of discovery research, and speed the search for new drugs to combat some of the world’s most deadly parasitic diseases, including malaria, leishmaniasis, African trypanosomiasis, onchocerciasis, schistosomiasis and Chagas' disease.
Under the arrangement, scientists in institutes affiliated with the WHO/TDR-sponsored Compound Evaluation Network are testing thousands of compounds from the Pfizer library. In a process called “screening”, the researchers are seeking to identify “hits” – compounds that show initial activity against a range of tropical parasites.
Well done!
Posted by Peter Pitts at 12:12 PM
Comments (0)
| TrackBack | Permalink
October 30, 2006
And then 10 minutes later you want to get tested again
by Peter Pitts
In case your copy of the People's Daily didn't arrive this morning, some important news ...
Chinese get genetic tests to determine disease risk
More than 300 Chinese have undergone genetic testing to determine their odds of developing cancers and other diseases. According to China's first and only genetic testing clinic at the No.1 hospital affiliated with Zhejiang University School of Medicine, more than 300 Chinese have had their DNA sampled at the center since it opened last October. "We look at a patient's medical history and family history, take their blood to analyze their DNA to look for genes that would possibly cause diseases," said Qi Ming, director of the center and professor at the university. Such tests help identify people more likely to get a disease and allow patients to take action to reduce their risk, he said. More than 1,000 genes have been found to relate to diseases. Breast cancer, colon cancer, abnormal heart rate, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and other diseases can be detected by the DNA tests, Qi said. The tests cost between 75 U.S. dollars and several hundred dollars, he said.
This needs to become standard practice in the US if we are to successfully scale the Great Wall of EBM (evidence-based medicine).
Posted by Peter Pitts at 07:00 AM
Comments (0)
| TrackBack | Permalink
October 26, 2006
Are We TOO PINK? I Think Not.
by Stephanie Koze
We’re in the last full week of National Breast Cancer Awareness Month, and some folks are tired of seeing pink. You know, the color associated most frequently with breast cancer awareness.
For years, pink ribbons have come out in full force during October as a means of raising breast cancer awareness and research contributions. Now, detractors are concerned that corporate entities are “getting in the pink” (i.e., pink lids for yogurt containers, pink soup containers, etc.) just to make a buck.
Perhaps we are heading toward pink overload. It does seem a bit incongruous that a soup manufacturer would sell its product in a pink container to generate awareness about breast cancer. And, perhaps “in the pink” corporations should donate more proceeds from their “pink sales” to breast cancer research.
But, “pink efforts” do raise awareness about breast cancer, as well as financial contributions that might not have been made otherwise. Just when I think I’m on the verge of pink overload, I remind myself that one life could be saved for every person who thinks about breast cancer, tells a friend or makes a research contribution because they saw, or purchased a pink commodity.
Let’s continue to support the “pink efforts;” while you are at it…don’t forget to “Go Red” to support awareness of heart disease in women.
Posted by stephanie_koze at 03:51 PM
Comments (0)
| TrackBack | Permalink
Low Consumer Trust Doesn’t Translate Into Calls for Regulation
by Holly Heline Jarrell
Of interest is a recent Harris Interactive poll showing that public support for more government regulation of business varies widely by industry. Pharmaceuticals, health insurers and managed care companies are among the top five targets for increased oversight, as has historically been the case. The Harris analysis links calls for regulation to a need for business to actively foster public trust – the idea being if they trust you, they won’t be compelled to impose more regulation on you. (See link: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=705).
But something else may be at play here.
Consider the following. This year, public trust – or the percentage of people calling an industry “generally honest” – has either declined or remained at the 2003 nadir for all three health-related industries. But so has the demand for more regulation. The numbers of Americans that want more government oversight of pharmaceuticals (48%, down 9 points since 2003), health insurers (48%, down 11 points), and HMOs (41%, down 19 points) appear to be down – and down sharply.
So, it’s a neat equation to say that the less they trust you, the more they want to regulate you (and vice versa), but it doesn’t hold in this case.
Americans continue to lose trust in the health care industry, but they are lightening up on regulation. Of course, poor marks for trust do mean that building bridges with the public should be prioritized. But, a softening call for regulation may also mean that people want a lot more than trust from health care players these days. One has to ask if faster, easier access to the latest developments and freer competition among providers could also be factors.
Posted by holly_heline_jarrell at 03:43 PM
Comments (0)
| TrackBack | Permalink
October 25, 2006
PricewaterhouseCoopers, biotech loves you too
by Kelly McKenna
For the first time, biotech and medical device companies received more VC funding last quarter than software companies, according to a report from PricewaterhouseCoopers and the National Venture Capital Association. In the state of California - the birthplace of biotech - the industry is now the second-largest driver of the high tech economy and has contributed more jobs than the motion picture and computer industries, according to a report by the California Healthcare Institute and PricewaterhouseCoopers.
Thanks to PricewaterhouseCoopers, biotech is being recognized as a true competitive and contributing industry.
Posted by kelly_mckenna at 03:48 PM
Comments (0)
| TrackBack | Permalink
October 24, 2006
Celebrity Sightings
by MaryEllen O'Donohue
Several years ago, a negative perception among media emerged when it came to using celebrities as the face of disease awareness campaigns. Whether celebs were overexposed or heralded a product or treatment for a condition that they, in some cases, knew little about, national broadcast producers and print reporters grew skeptical about their authenticity as true spokespeople. In some cases, a celebrity's relationship to the condition extended itself via an extended family member, which raised additional red flags in the newsroom.
Interestingly enough, as we've moved further away from this controversy, producers' and reporters' viewpoints have altered based on their current needs to meet executive producer's expectations to achieve high ratings. Attitudes towards booking celebrity talent have softened to allow for the occasional "Grade A" celebrity interview--that is, an opportunity for the spokesperson to share their personal experience with viewers about a disease or campaign they feel strongly and passionately about. Celebrity reporters enjoy interviewing spokespeople who are great storytellers and are involved in noteworthy causes such as World AIDS, World Hunger, Preserving the Environment. What helps a disease or product pitch is information about the professional activities the celebrity can bring to the party. Ultimately, what makes for an effective celebrity interview is whether the reader or viewer can walk away from the interview feeling enlightened or admitting that they've learned something new.
With that said, keep those celebrity interviews coming. Of course, keep an open mind about who you use and do your research thoroughly to ensure the authenticity of your celebrity's story. If the talent seems sincere to you, then it is likely that he/she will impact the viewing audience similarly.
Posted by maryellen_o'donohue at 04:38 PM
Comments (0)
| TrackBack | Permalink
October 19, 2006
To b-roll or not to b-roll?
by Mary Coyle
The use of vnr and b-roll packages remains under scrutiny, more than a year after The Center for Media and Democracy released its 2006 report on video news releases. And, while the media fights back against these allegations, most recently seen as a group of VNR producers banded together to form a group to lobby Washington, we continue to feel the impact.
VNRs have been on the decline for sometime, but over the past year use has dropped dramatically with public relations professionals turning more and more to b-roll packages. However, this intense scrutiny is now impacting b-rolls as well. Producers at FOX and NBC are now requiring "customized, tailored b-roll," and are no longer accepting the generic packages distributed to all media. Scrutiny from the FDA and FCC concerning accuracy seems to have prompted this change.
Despite this scrutiny, b-rolls are a valuable tool for both pr professionals and local television stations. Many times, these stations have very tight budgets, are short staffed, and rely on such packages to deliver relevant news to their viewers. So, think of b-rolls as becoming more “individualized tools” for various networks. But don’t put them out to pasture just yet…
Posted by mary_coyle at 05:43 PM
Comments (0)
| TrackBack | Permalink
Are We Too Quick with the Hook??
by Kelly G. Dencker
In an era when tomorrow's print headlines are already old news, there's a growing tendency to move on too quickly from successful consumer health campaigns in search of the next national media hit. Think back. Have you felt compelled to present an entirely new national campaign idea despite the fact that the current program was smart and still very effective?
A decade ago, the typical consumer health campaign rolled out coast-to-coast over a 24-month period, allowing a good investment of time and planning to grow and blossom on a grassroots level nationwide. Today, there's a national advertising mentality that's pushing PR to create and roll out big campaigns on a regular basis. In part, this is due to pharma world pullback on DTC advertising and the need to sustain buzz in the national media year round.
Fact is, getting consumer education programs recognized nationally is challenging, but more importantly, it may not even be on strategy as the best way to reach your audience. Local market media, events and new media vehicles allow you surround and focus on your audience. A great deal of time and money is spent developing consumer campaigns, and too often not enough focus or credit is given to successful grassroots outreach, where the benefits can be most impactful. Further third party partners want to put their weight behind programs with staying prower - those that last (and are supported) for more than six months.
If you're feeling compelled to shake up your current program, ask yourself three questions: 1) is the current campaign still on strategy and achieving its objectives? 2) Are there markets, outlets or audiences that would still benefit from this campaign?, 3 ) Is there an ROI advantage to continuing or repackaging this program versus developing another? If you answered yes to any of the questions, take a moment to evaluate if you are moving on to a new campaign for the right reasons. Good ideas and solid campaigns don't come around every day, and the best program for you and your brand today just might be under your nose.
Posted by kelly_dencker at 09:14 AM
Comments (0)
| TrackBack | Permalink
Hello Dolley!
by Peter Pitts
Meat and milk from cloned animals! Calls for absurd, unscientific labeling!
Just another day at the FDA.
According to the FDA, the agency has "studies that show that the meat and milk from cattle clones and their offspring are as safe as that from conventionally bred animals." In other words – GRAS. Plans to regulate cloned animals and food derived from them, should be released by the end of this year.
Does this mean cloned beef in your burger? No. At tens of thousands of dollars per “founder” clone this is hardly likely (at least in the foreseeable future). So, unless you’re in the market for a $25,000 Big Mac, relax.
You want fries with that?
In the future, if and when the technology for animal cloning becomes more cost-efficient, it is possible that the meat of clone progeny could be available at retail. And milk from clones is certainly on the way a lot sooner.
By promugating this new rule, FDA is working to advance the science of cloning -- an important advance towards creating a better, safer 21st century food supply.
"Cloning allows the possibility of identifying the healthiest and the superior sires or boars that are going to be used for breeding purposes," said Barb Glenn of the Biotechnology Industry Organization.
Dairy producers are worried about what might happen if "clone-free" products start showing up in supermarkets. "We have concerns where people are going to try to draw distinctions and differences where none exist," said Chris Galen, spokesman for the National Milk Producers Federation.
Perhaps this cause will be taken up by a new consumer advocacy organization – MOOveOn.org.
(Sorry about that.)
Posted by Peter Pitts at 08:10 AM
Comments (0)
| TrackBack | Permalink
October 18, 2006
The China Syndrome
by Peter Pitts
How is the spread of counterfeit prescription drugs being addressed in China?
Interesting new article in "Insight" (the official publication of the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai) that, indeed, offers insight into the views of PRC officials -- and the actions they are taking (or say they are taking) to combat the issue of prescription drug counterfeiting (aka: international health care terrorism).
See for yourself:
Posted by Peter Pitts at 02:20 PM
Comments (0)
| TrackBack | Permalink
October 16, 2006
Patent proposal may hinder biotech innovation
by Kelly McKenna
With a backlog of more than 700,000 cases, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is seeking ways to remedy their patent application system. However, they’re current ideas could hurt biotech companies and hinder innovation.
Proposals under consideration would limit continuations and the number of application claims that can be filed. The rules, which could be implemented before the end of the year, would ultimately discourage or punish innovation. The nature of biotech requires complex, lengthy and add-on applications, and their survival, particularly small companies, depends on patent protection. Long-term patents enable them to gain an industry foothold and niche leadership and to recover the costs of development, often decades invested and millions spent.
To read commentary on the potential negative effects and how companies see the rules discouraging investment and incentive, go to http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/comments/fpp_continuation/continuation_comments.html
Posted by kelly_mckenna at 02:18 PM
Comments (0)
| TrackBack | Permalink
October 13, 2006
Is Hezbollah Filling Your Prescription
by Peter Pitts
I've penned a new op-ed running in today's edition of the San Diego Union-Tribune on the issue that won't go away -- drug importation. Even though it says it's authored by Leonard Pitts, it's actually written by yours truly (note citation at the end of the article). We rarely get confused in person.
Click on this link and then go to "Today's Paper" and then to "Opinion."
http://www.signonsandiego.com
Have a look and spread the word that we must transcend the soundbites about drug importation.
Posted by Peter Pitts at 10:46 AM
Comments (0)
| TrackBack | Permalink
October 12, 2006
No health care information please, we’re Canadian
by Peter Pitts
Maclean's, Mon 16 Oct 2006
Byline: DANYLO HAWALESHKA
In the pivotal courtroom scene from A Few Good Men, Tom Cruise shouts, "I want the truth!" at Jack Nicholson, whose truculent character is testifying. "You can't handle the truth!" Nicholson famously retorts. Today, in a real-life courtroom drama, CanWest MediaWorks Inc. has, in a manner, assumed Cruise's role, with a somewhat less altruistic goal in mind than simple verity.
In a civil lawsuit now before Ontario's Superior Court of Justice, CanWest contends Canadians are being denied important truths about prescription medications because of strict limits on drug advertising. Canada's largest media company claims the regulations thwart its constitutional right to freedom of expression.
CanWest's suit against the attorney general of Canada casts the country's Food and Drugs Act as the villain. The act forbids direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) that ties a prescription drug to a treatment, cure or disease. (It is illegal for CanWest to, for instance, run an ad to promote Viagra for impotence, but quite legal to separately publicize the brand, or the condition; there are no such restrictions on ads that target physicians exclusively in, say, trade journals.)
In a sworn statement, Arturo Duran, a CanWest MediaWorks president, claims permitting DTCA in Canada would educate the public about drug risks and benefits. "There is no evidence to justify a ban on truthful advertising of prescription drugs," Duran says.
Posted by Peter Pitts at 01:07 PM
Comments (0)
| TrackBack | Permalink
October 10, 2006
Where has the "relations" gone in media relations??
by MaryEllen O'Donohue
The other day a colleague and I attended an event celebrating the centennial of the press release. One of the panelists argued that the first press release was more than 100 years ago and began with the Declaration of Independence. The document was disseminated to key "influencers" and the news then spread throughout the country. I would have to agree with that assessment. And since then, the press release has become a staple of public relations.
Well, perhaps it shouldn't be. More than 3,000 press releases are sent out across wire services every day! Reporters are inundated with press releases in their in-boxes and harassed by follow-up calls asking "Did you get my email?" And the majority of the time, the press release sent to the reporter has nothing to do with the beat they cover. No wonder reporters have a love/hate relationship with PR professionals.
Where has the "relations" gone in media relations?? All too often PR professionals focus on media and not relations. Yet developing solid relationships with reporters will accomplish much more than a press release ever will. There are some key “rules of engagement” for successful relationship building:
---Read. Watch. Listen: Know the media and the reporter you are pitching (deadlines, schedules, contact preferences, recent articles etc)
---Demonstrate your expertise: Understand marketplace, product details, major competitors etc.
---Relationships are a two-way street: Listen to reporters needs as well as expressing your own
---Build trust: Don’t over promise and under-deliver, meet deadlines, be responsive, always be truthful
---Establish yourself as a resource: send ideas unrelated to clients, feed trend information, respond to reporter requests, etc
---Look for opportunities to engage: media panels, networking events, lunch, etc.
And remember, relationships take time. Blasting your press release via email and placing follow-up calls asking "Did you get my email?" is not media relations.
Posted by maryellen_o'donohue at 01:43 PM
Comments (0)
| TrackBack | Permalink
Bouquets & Brickbats Brussels Style
by Peter Pitts
All is not quiet on the Western Front.
Since the EU’s High Level Pharmaceutical Forum (HLPF) recommended that Europe revisit new, more patient-friendly rules towards direct-to-consumer health care information (what our transatlantic cousins refer to as, “information-to-patients” or “ItP”) the merde has hit the fan.
Hey, you gotta break some eggs to make an omelet.
Bouquets to MEP Jorgo Chatzimarkakis, one of the EU Parliament's three representatives on the HLPF, who finds the current information ban on medicines unacceptable. "I can understand a ban on advertisements but I can not agree on the ban on information, which leads us to a situation where patients are obliged to surf around the Internet to look for information on medicines. Citizens can not be deprived of information by their own governments on such crucial issues as one's health," he argues.
And brickbats to Health Action International (HAI) who claims, “there is no health information gap in Europe.” (www.haiweb.org). HAI (no relation to Hospital Acquired Infections – but you think they would have thought about that before adopting the acronym) disallows with a wave of their hand any useful participation by the pharmaceutical industry in providing patient information because of a “natural conflict of interest.” How very Rousseau. But concepts of natural liberty notwithstanding, HAI offers up al lot of the usual anti-industry accusations without even a scintilla of evidence. I guess since it’s “natural,” no proof is required. Weak argument.
And who does HAI consider excellent sources of patient information? Get this – IQWIG and NICE to name two. Really. I am not making this up.
HAI waves the usual banners of “evidence-based medicine,” “rational use of medicine,” and the “over-medicalisation of the European population.” And they are very clearly adherents to the Precautionary Principle of "doing nothing until you know everything" (not surprising since one of their major funders is the Rockefeller Foundation).
And listen to this, “For each option (of type of medicine) patients should be able to clearly identify benefits (degrees of clinical effectiveness on important outcomes, convenience, etc.) and harms (potential side effects, disturbances of personal and social life, etc.). Yes – and every taxpayer should have a deep and profound understanding of the tax code. How about this as a recommendation – let patients have access to information from every source and then let them speak with their physicians. That’s when good things happen.
“Degrees of clinical effectiveness?” Isn’t that the job of … physicians?
By the way, in case you’re wondering about where HAI gets its money -- out of a total budget of €1.022.169 (2002 figures are the latest available) €557.604 came from the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Of that funding, €300.104 was spent on something called the “Drug Pricing Project.”
Aha and indeed. Will better-informed consumers want broader access to more pharmaceutical options? Nuff said. And let's face it; EU governments don’t want to spend the money -- outcomes notwithstanding. No wonder HAI points to IQWIG and ilk as the best sources for consumer health care information.
What a blatant charade.
Information is Power.
Posted by Peter Pitts at 08:26 AM
Comments (0)
| TrackBack | Permalink
October 05, 2006
Modern Medicine...Now What?
by Stephanie Koze
Many infertile couples now can conceive thanks to modern medicine. This progress has led to a number of quandaries, however – including preterm births and insurance coverage issues.
The Institute of Medicine reported in July 2006 that preterm births have increased 30 percent since 1981, costing society at least $26 billion a year. The use of fertility treatments has been linked to between 10 and 15 percent of preterm births.
The Institute has called for more research to be conducted to explore why preterm births are on the rise. What experts know now is that women opting for fertility treatments often experience multiple births, which can lead to preterm delivery.
Fertility treatments are very expensive, and insurance companies don’t cover in vitro fertilization, a common fertility treatment. As a result, many infertile couples end up opting for multiple embryos to be implanted via in vitro fertilization, or they opt for over-ovulation to increase their chances for conception. These approaches can lead to multiple births and preterm delivery.
If insurance companies provided better coverage for fertility treatments, they might actually reduce the incidence of multiple embryos and multiple births – thereby decreasing the astronomical medical costs associated with treating premature infants who suffer short- or long-term health consequences as a result of their early arrival.
Posted by stephanie_koze at 05:07 PM
Comments (0)
| TrackBack | Permalink
October 04, 2006
Once more into the breach … Granny
by Peter Pitts
Yes folks, it’s that time again.
November 15 begins the six-week enrollment season for Part D. The good news is that, in most states, beneficiaries will have 50 to 60 offerings to choose from, at least 10 more than in 2006.
According to an article in The Wall Street Journal, “Who should consider switching? Prime candidates are those who picked plans for this year that provided coverage of the so-called doughnut hole, or who fell into that gap and now want coverage for it. For a higher premium, some plans offer to cover drug expenses through the gap.”
We'll see if smart providers start promoting this alternative.
Also according to the WSJ, “In another shift, many plans are making changes that will reduce the chances that consumers will even reach the $2,400 level where the coverage gap starts. By eliminating co-pays for generic drugs in some plans, for instance, insurers are making such treatments essentially free to patients (at least until they reach the coverage gap). Aetna is dropping co-pays for generics in many of its plans, while Cigna says it is eliminating generic co-pays in all of its most basic drug plans.”
How do we do it? Volume!
Further, the WSJ keys into the fact that, properly leveraged, market forces are increasing both choice and quality. “There may be a huge market of potential shoppers. Only 20% of 3,400 beneficiaries surveyed last month by J.D. Power & Associates said they would definitely stay with the plan they had. About two million Americans will turn 65 in 2007 and also will be eligible. At least another four million, including three million low-income beneficiaries not subject to penalties for missing the deadline earlier this year, have yet to enroll.”
Somewhere Mark McClellan is smiling.
Posted by Peter Pitts at 08:54 AM
Comments (0)
| TrackBack | Permalink
October 03, 2006
Will Brussels DTC the Light?
by Peter Pitts
According to a recent Populus survey, when asked what reforms would most likely increase their quality of care, people in eight old and new EU member countries responded by a large margin, “giving patients more information about their illness."
And Brussels may indeed be moving in that direction.
Last March in Brussels I appeared on a panel with James Copping, the Principal Administrator for the EU’s Enterprise and Industry Directorate-General, the body drafting the EU’s go-forward recommendations on a how the EU should address what they refer to as ItP or Information-to-Patients.
One interchange between Jim and me that is worth sharing:
COPPING: "We must find new ways to regulate health care information to patients."
PITTS: "Jim, I think a better way to frame the question is to say that you need to find new ways to facilitate health care information to patients.”
COPPING: "Yes, that’s right.”
Well, it seems as though Mr. Copping has done just that.
According to a report in the The Financial Times, draft recommendations prepared for a pharmaceuticals forum, jointly chaired by the European commissioners for enterprise and health, will call for industry participation in partnerships for "information creation and exchange" on diseases for patients and citizens.
They propose a trial scheme to provide "high-quality health-related information" on diabetes, offering data to the non-specialist in all official EU languages, drawing on authorised disease databases, with input from doctors, patient groups and health insurers as well as industry.
The move would mark a significant shift away from the current ban in Europe of US-style "direct to consumer advertising," which forbids drugs companies from any form of direct communication with patients.
With partial exceptions in the UK and Sweden, European legislation prevents drugs companies from even responding to inquiries from patients, let alone advertising their medicines beyond specialist publications for medical professionals. That has created a situation long decried by the industry, by which patients can find all manner of unreliable information on diseases and treatments on the internet, with the pharmaceuticals manufacturers the only groups banned from providing data.
The initiative comes after previous efforts to ease the rules on pharmaceuticals communication were crushed by health insurers and consumer groups wary of industry influence and manipulation.
Good luck Mr. Copping.
Posted by Peter Pitts at 07:58 AM
Comments (0)
| TrackBack | Permalink
October 02, 2006
Patients lack key Rx information
by Peter Pitts
This is news?
Well, since it's true it's worth repeating, and since it's based on "a new study" it's worth reporting on. Still, I'm surpised that it even made the UPI wire. So much the better.
Here goes ...
"Patients who leave the doctor's office with a prescription may be leaving something important behind."
Car keys? No, they're leaving, brace yourself, without "the information they need to take their medicines correctly."
In fact, according a new study (see, told you) from UCLA (go Bruins!) doctors only give their patients 62% of five "key pieces" of information:
* Patients were told the name of a new medication only 74% of the time.
* Patients were told why they were taking a new medication only 87% of the time.
* Only 30% of patients were told how long to take the new prescription.
* Only 55% of patients were told how many tablets to take.
* Only 58% for both frequency and appropriate timing (with food, etc.)
And the winner is:
* Doctors told patients about potential adverse events of a new medication only 35% of the time.
To be fair this was a study based on data collected from 185 outpatient visits to 44 physicians, so draw your own "margin of error" conclusions.
Posted by Peter Pitts at 07:10 AM
Comments (0)
| TrackBack | Permalink
Where Pro Choice Meets Pro Life
by Peter Pitts
Hurrah for a David Leonhardt and his superb article “The Choice: A Longer Life or More Stuff” (New York Times, September 27, 2006).
It’s a very thoughtful and provocative essay about what we, as a society, receive for what many pundit, pols, and MSM savants derisively refer to as “spiraling health care costs.”
Mr. Leonhardt writes, “Living in a society that spends a lot of money on health care creates real problems, but it also has something in common with getting old. It’s better than the alternative.”
As David Cutler (my second favorite health economist -- after Brother McClellan) points out in “Your Money or Your Life,” in 1950 the average American spent less than $100 a year ($500 in today’s dollars) on medical care. That number today is $6000.
And, according to Leonhardt, “Most families in the 1950’s paid their bills, but they also didn’t expect much in return. After a century of basic health improvements like indoor plumbing and penicillin, many experts thought that human beings were approaching the limits of longevity.”
Remember what biologist Rene Dubos wrote in the 1960’s, “Modern medicine has little to offer for the prevention or treatment of chronic and degenerative diseases.”
As Walter Wriston famously quipped, “The future isn’t what it used to be.” He was wrong. And so was Monsieur Dubos.
Dan Quayle was more on the mark (kind of) when he said, “The future will be better tomorrow.” That's turned out to be surprisingly prescient.
Mr. Leonhardt points out that perhaps “spiraling” costs are, well, worth it. “A baby born in the United States this year will live to age 78 on average, a decade longer than the average baby born in 1950 … If you think about this as the return on the investment on medicine, the payoff has been fabulous: Would you prefer spending an extra $5500 on health care every year – or losing ten years of your lifespan?”
And what do you think the proponents of so-called "rational use of medicine" would have to say about that? Ultimately, they say what Leonhardt points out as both true and frightening -- "that the best way to reduce health care spending is to reduce health care itself."
That is not acceptable in our affluent society. In First World societies health care is precisely how we should spend our money. As David Cutler writes, “We have enough of the basics in life. What we really want are the time and the quality of life to enjoy them.”
And to do this we must be able to choose the health care (yes – even the pharmaceuticals) that are best suited to our individual needs. Choosing to support spending on health care means choosing life.
Health care: it's where pro-choice meets pro-life.
Posted by Peter Pitts at 07:09 AM
Comments (0)
| TrackBack | Permalink
